US Offensive Strategy in 2026: Hegemony, Force & Interests
The United States’ offensive strategy in 2026, as it is taking shape under President Donald Trump’s second term, reflects a profound shift in how American power is conceived and deployed. The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) abandons the post–Cold War emphasis on liberal internationalism and instead embraces a hard-edged, transactional vision of national interest.
“America First” is no longer
merely a slogan; it has become a governing doctrine that fuses military force,
economic leverage, and political coercion into a single strategic framework.
The recent U.S. military action against Venezuela, culminating in the capture
of Nicolás Maduro, offers a revealing case study of this new offensive posture
and signals what the rest of the world should expect from Washington in 2026.
At the heart of the current NSS
is a redefinition of threats and priorities. The document frames the
international system as a zero-sum arena in which American decline can only be
arrested through decisive action, particularly in regions deemed vital to U.S.
power.
The Western Hemisphere occupies a
privileged place in this worldview. Reviving and expanding the logic of the
Monroe Doctrine, the Trump administration asserts that external powers especially
China and Russia must be excluded from the Americas.
Venezuela, with its vast energy
reserves and long-standing defiance of Washington, thus becomes not only a
political irritant but a strategic obstacle to U.S. regional dominance.
The U.S. offensive strategy in
2026 is therefore likely to be characterized by the normalization of direct
military action in defence of narrowly defined national interests. The
Venezuela operation demonstrates a willingness to bypass multilateral
institutions, ignore international legal constraints, and act without broad
allied support.
Unlike earlier interventions
justified by humanitarian rhetoric or collective security, this action was
openly framed in terms of U.S. security, law enforcement, and economic
advantage. The message is clear: sovereignty is conditional when it conflicts with
American priorities.
This approach also reveals a
deeper fusion of military and economic objectives. Trump’s public statements
about controlling Venezuela’s oil infrastructure underscore how military force
is increasingly seen as a tool to secure material gains.
The NSS explicitly links national
security to economic strength, energy dominance, and supply-chain control. In
this logic, successful military operations are expected to produce tangible
economic returns, whether through access to resources, leverage over markets,
or the exclusion of rival powers. The battlefield and the balance sheet are no
longer separate domains of policy.
The role of the U.S. Department
of War: effectively the Department of Defence and the wider national security
apparatus has expanded accordingly. No longer confined to deterrence or defence,
the Pentagon has become a central instrument of political strategy.
Special operations forces,
intelligence assets, and precision strike capabilities are being used for
high-risk missions that would once have been considered extraordinary, such as
the capture of a sitting head of state.
The Venezuela operation sets a
precedent that could lower the threshold for similar actions elsewhere,
particularly against governments labelled as criminal, illegitimate, or hostile
to U.S. interests. This expansion of military authority is accompanied by a
blurring of constitutional and legal boundaries.
Congressional oversight appears
increasingly marginal, while international law is treated as optional. The
Department of War is thus not merely executing policy but shaping it,
translating presidential intent into ‘faits accomplis’ that are difficult to
reverse.
In 2026, U.S. offensive strategy
is likely to rely heavily on rapid, decisive operations designed to shock
adversaries, deter challengers, and demonstrate American resolve in an era of
perceived decline.
However, this strategy carries
significant global risks. By normalizing unilateral intervention and regime
change, the United States weakens the very norms that have historically
protected smaller and middle powers from coercion.
If Washington claims the right to
use force pre-emptively to secure its interests, other major powers may adopt
similar justifications in their own regions. The result could be a more
fragmented, unstable international order where power, rather than law,
determines outcomes.
For Malaysia, these developments
are not distant abstractions but urgent strategic realities. As a medium-sized
trading nation located at a critical maritime crossroads, Malaysia depends
heavily on stability, international law, and open economic systems.
A world in which great powers
increasingly use force to resolve disputes poses direct risks to Malaysian
sovereignty and prosperity. The lesson from the current U.S. NSS is not that
Malaysia should oppose the United States outright, but that it must carefully
balance its relations to avoid strategic vulnerability.
First, Malaysia must deepen and
diversify its partnerships. Overreliance on any single great power whether the
U.S. or China creates exposure to pressure and coercion. Strengthening ASEAN
centrality, enhancing ties with Japan, the European Union, India, and other
middle powers, and maintaining pragmatic engagement with both Washington and
Beijing are essential to preserving strategic autonomy. Multipolar diplomacy is
no longer an abstract ideal but a practical necessity.
Second, Malaysia should double
down on its commitment to international law and multilateralism. While global
norms are under strain, smaller states have the most to lose from their
erosion. By consistently supporting the UN system, the Law of the Sea, and
ASEAN’s principles of non-intervention and peaceful dispute resolution,
Malaysia helps sustain frameworks that constrain unilateral military action.
Even when these norms are violated, their continued assertion matters for
long-term stability.
Third, the U.S. emphasis on
economic security offers an important lesson. Malaysia must treat economic
resilience as a core component of national security. This means diversifying
export markets, protecting critical infrastructure, investing in strategic
industries, and reducing exposure to geopolitical shocks. The securitization of
trade, technology, and energy is not a temporary trend but a defining feature
of the emerging order.
Finally, Malaysia should invest
in strategic awareness and defence diplomacy. Understanding U.S. military
doctrine, force posture, and strategic intent allows Malaysia to anticipate
shifts that may affect Southeast Asia.
At the same time,
confidence-building measures, regional defence cooperation, and preventive
diplomacy within ASEAN can help reduce the risk that great-power rivalry spills
into the region.
In a nutshell, the U.S. offensive
strategy in 2026 reflects a post-liberal vision of power in which military
force, economic gain, and national interest are tightly intertwined. The
Department of War has become a primary engine of this strategy, executing bold
actions with far-reaching implications for global order.
For Malaysia, the challenge is
not to choose sides, but to navigate this harsher landscape with prudence,
balance, and strategic foresight. In an era where might increasingly defines
right, safeguarding national interests requires both realism and restraint.
05.01.2025
Kuala Lumpur.
© All rights reserved.
Note: This opinion piece has been revised to include the implications of U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat against Colombia, as reported by Focus Malaysia on 9 January 2026.
Comments